familypediawikiaorg-20200214-history
Talk:Henry II of England (1133-1189)/ahnentafel
Individuals that The Henry Project has but that we do not have Descendants of Charlemagne I've completed the OoC refs - at the end of each affected line of the table - for everybody currently shown on the HP as a descendant of Charlemagne. Familypedia has a page for every individual currently numbered on The Henry Project who has an "OoC": about 41 people, in a total of six lineages: one through his father and 4416 Pepin of Italy; the single shortest one, through his mother and 3370 Louis the Pious by way of numbers such as 26, 52, and 105; three others that branch off the shortest one at those numbers mentioned but also reach Louis; and a sixth that branches from one of that last group at 208 and slips across to the maternal line by way of 417 to join at 276. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:55, June 30, 2010 (UTC) - amended (twice, up to) 14:32, July 7, 2010 (UTC) Other individuals that The Henry Project has but that we do not have Now that I've finished the exciting ones that give us more confidence about lines from KdG, we can do all the others. Currently about 85. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:16, July 7, 2010 (UTC) If we start at Henry's end, each new individual will improve the /tree subpage of descendants. But someone keen on strengthening lines from Scottish Kings may start with Fergus in Generation 24. As a Scot by predominant ancestry, I'm concentrating on working up towards Fergus. The Henry Project pages for individuals list children, not just the Henry-line children; so on our way up or down those lines we can create pages for the siblings of Henry's ancestors, or link to them if we recognize that they already have pages. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:12, July 3, 2010 (UTC) On each new page, we should list the Henry Project URL that deals with the person and list a few others, e.g. http://www.e-familytree.net/surnames.htm, Genealogics, Medieval Lands, thePeerage.com, and Tompsett (from Hull University). Any others recommended? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 14:32, July 7, 2010 (UTC) There is some further discussion on the HENRY PROJECT - see http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/browse_thread/thread/6f468f9c94e2977e?hl=en# Individuals that we have but that The Henry Project does not have Our links to their children could be disputed. So the children's Orders of Charlemagne could be fictitious. Working up from Henry, record what HP says about each individual whose parents are not what we give them and whether "our" other learned study (Medieval Lands) supports our parentage links. If our only support is from a one-person compilation that's not strong on sources, and EITHER: *one of the serious studies (not contradicted by the other) says that that parent is unlikely; OR *neither of the two serious studies mentions that person as a possible parent, we should: #cut the connexion and explain why #put that child in the "Disputed descendants" list on Project Charlemagne if we currently give it an Order of Charlemagne. (Clear as mud?) If in doubt, someone can put the question to the collective wisdom of soc.gen.medieval, inviting them to discuss it on the individual's talk page HERE on Familypedia. (Take care when posting links there.) — Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:55, June 30, 2010 (UTC) There are at least a few dozen of these individuals, either shown or potential. I generally haven't pasted the links in for more than a generation or two beyond the "matching" level in case we decide that ours are wrong. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 14:32, July 7, 2010 (UTC) Matching pages Currently about 130. Hard to be precise about the number, because of the duplicates, which we and the HP generally show at both numbers with a reference to the lower number. The HP's total number of Ahnentafel numbers that link to pages is at present 198. We should be aiming to reach that. Not a great many more articles to go. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 14:32, July 7, 2010 (UTC) Ancestors for whom The Henry Project has notes without separate pages For ancestors about whom little is known, the HP has merely a name without a page - currently 92. Eventually we should have a matching name with a separate page for each; we have a couple of dozen already. When we have the required 290 articles, one for each Ahnentafel number listed on the Henry Project, we will be able to tell members of soc.gen.medieval that the wiki is the best place to discuss individuals. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 14:32, July 7, 2010 (UTC) Sources I am relatively new at medieval genealogy, but am getting frustrated fast. On the gen-medieval mailing list there is a lot of one-upmanship & name calling which does absolutely nothing for genealogy in general & medieval research in particular. It seems Leo's Genealogics website is considered quite good as is the Henry Project, as well as material posted by Nat Taylor, Todd Faramie & John Rad...(can't remember how to spell the last name) to name a few. Medieval Foundations seems quite good but receives criticisms. The Complete Peerage is often quoted as a source but there is a web page devoted to corrections. Genealogics is often referred to as a "source" (Leo does indeed quote his sources) but it is not perfect either (what is!?!), as is Weis's Ancestry of 60 Colonists (which has been revised & corrected at least 7 times). Anyway, it seems to me that if there is a discussion that generally someone is not correct then that person should be deleated & the reference noted (very much like Henry Project). If the information is not completely documented or there is some question then that (possible/probable) person should be so noted with the references, this way we would have a website to refer to when there is a question about some person. I am finding a 90% error rate on WorldConnect on RootsWeb and it would be nice if we could post on the individual involved (they have post-em notes) that such and such is questionable or outright wrong. If we can get more people working on the correct lines we would not keep reinventing the wheel. 25 years from now most people who actually have the same lineage will not know it because there is so much wrong stuff posted. I would post actual corrections on the people listed here but I am not confident enough to make changes from a technological standpoint nor a medieval genealogical view. Also, sources are often given in original Latin without any translation so I do not know what is being said anyway, and cannot follow someone's argument for whatever point they are making. Need to get someone who can translate Latin references. It appears to me that too many references being used for this Project are from the internet and not good published sources. I know the internet is the "new bible" but it is scary how much wrong info is being disseminated. My two cents worth. Jim LaLone 16:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :Jim, I agree with practically everything you say there. The Familypedia talk page for a particular individual is a good place to air concerns about the validity of any stated links affecting that person. Our aim is to get correct lines here at first shot rather than allowing multiple lines to be created or multiple pages for individuals who may be the same. A tentative line is better than none, because it lets people get a better picture of what is being discussed. And an internet reference is better than no "source"; readers can look at the target site and "dig" deeper if possible to see what it's based on. We have individual pages here for genealogy websites, and welcome comments on their talk pages about the reliability of the sites. The Henry Project and Medieval Lands must stand fairly high, particularly because of how the former is being discussed by other scholars on soc.gen.medieval. Those sites translate much of the Latin that they quote, and some of us have enough proficiency to get a fair idea of what is not translated. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:28, July 2, 2010 (UTC)